there has been a SERIOUS lack of attention drawn to key points of this bill. this is the old proposed bill still going through congress to make it a felony to view or stream media without copyright permissions. same as it's always been, just now it's a felony. this will not touch sites like youtube or crunchy as there are methods in place to make sure copyright protection is done properly. silmulcasts through licensed sites are COMPLETELY safe, and youtube, read the EULA you agree to when submitting a video... lol

there has been a SERIOUS lack of attention drawn to key points of this bill. this is the old proposed bill still going through congress to make it a felony to view or stream media without copyright permissions. same as it's always been, just now it's a felony. this will not touch sites like youtube or crunchy as there are methods in place to make sure copyright protection is done properly. silmulcasts through licensed sites are COMPLETELY safe, and youtube, read the EULA you agree to when submitting a video... lol

I think there are more things to worry about than copy-righted materials, this also effects just uploading images which will ruin some, hell i can take a cap of any simulcast at any-time by using the snipping tool in windows vista and seven. Even that would be deemed illegal If i am reading this right.

The internet is like a sponge, it absorbs and moves on. Passed or not, the internet will just move on. Its not going to shut down. Sites that show stuff illegally might but they'll just spring up in some new form. Piracy stuff is like weeds. You think you got'em and they pop right back up. So those who'll like to steal anime and what not thru their precious torrents and such will just find another way. Frankly the internet could use some cleaning up.

Have you ever considered the probability that a comparative law was already approved in other countries and the internet is still "online"?

Youtube:
Awesome website, we all know - but nowadays it takes me an abnormal amount of time to find a video by popular singers
such as Lady Gaga - why?
Because due to copyright infringement videos containing protected contents are no longer available in my country. I've a few possibilities on
my hands:
1) Searching for a video which hasn't (yet) been removed
2) Changing my proxy server
3) Living without the videos

Private persons who are illegally distributing copyrighted content are prosecuted and face penalties of 5+ years.

But whatever is going to happen, not all contents which are available online are illegal and surely the internet is not going to shut down.

If this bill were to pass, it have a huge impact on the gaming industries. If you think about it, streaming sites are a good way for game companies (small ones especially) to get good publicity. If youtube wasn't around, then small indie games like minecraft wouldn't be what it is today. This bill will also ruin the lives of video game commentators who depend on youtube to make a living. What would happen to companies like Machinima? It would probably be shut down because a good amount of their content would be affect by this bill. I highly doubt this bill will pass, and even if it did. I'm sure it would probably be abolished like the temperance act.

This bill is as stupid as the NFL copyrighting "Superbowl" and you cannot utter those two words on TV or the radio without paying the NFL for it's use. In case you noticed that they only mention "the big game".

If this bill were to pass, it have a huge impact on the gaming industries. If you think about it, streaming sites are a good way for game companies (small ones especially) to get good publicity. If youtube wasn't around, then small indie games like minecraft wouldn't be what it is today. This bill will also ruin the lives of video game commentators who depend on youtube to make a living. What would happen to companies like Machinima? It would probably be shut down because a good amount of their content would be affect by this bill. I highly doubt this bill will pass, and even if it did. I'm sure it would probably be abolished like the temperance act.

the creator of minecraft said this about the issue

If the bill passes, I suspect many game companies (including us) will add a special clause to the TOS specifically to allow posting videos of their games. A huge part of why Minecraft has grown so fast is the YouTube community

naruto12900wrote:Bill S.978 is the end of the internet if this pill is passed Crunchyroll will no longer be here

I don't know if you realised but Crunchyroll license the anime they broadcast. That means they have the copyright holders consent.

ITT: People who don't have a clue about law talk about law.

*facepalm*

um...you spelled realized wrong

Depends on whether you're a yank or a brit with the spelling there, sorry hon. Realised works fine on my PC (thank you opera dictionary). I think its with a Z if you're in the USA or somesuch. But no, fella you're quoting is right...most poeple don't think about the legality of most stuff.
Its true, people who don't have a clue about the law, talk about it. They come in 3 varieties - politicians, lawyers, and the general public

there has been a SERIOUS lack of attention drawn to key points of this bill. this is the old proposed bill still going through congress to make it a felony to view or stream media without copyright permissions. same as it's always been, just now it's a felony. this will not touch sites like youtube or crunchy as there are methods in place to make sure copyright protection is done properly. silmulcasts through licensed sites are COMPLETELY safe, and youtube, read the EULA you agree to when submitting a video... lol

We're supposed to READ eulas?! I thought they were table dressing, or an optional hard-drive filler :P.
Seriously though, when was the last time you actually paid a gnats-fart of attention to a eula? They aught to start providing amended/concise versions (like 10 do's and 10 do nots and possible outcomes for being naughty)! But not. further reading is definitely required.

I think this might frighten a few sites into banning all traffic coming from the U.S. TorrentSpy did that a while back, while they were still in operation. Big sites like YouTube probably won't even do that, they just might get a bit stricter about enforcing policy. As far as the general public is concerned, I don't think most people will give a damn. Among this community there might be more people who will piss their pants every time they download something illegally though.

As someone who has been through the American justice system, I think I can fairly say this: "up to 5 years in prison" will mean, for a first offense at the least, that you will get a misdemeanor conviction at worst. This is for the average uploader anyway.

My brother got sued by the RIAA for uploading an assload of songs years ago, and since he didn't pay his $6k fine he was supposed to appear in court if he wanted to dispute it. He never did. You know what happened? SQUAT! So they plan to make the penalty more harsh than squat. People are overreacting to this whole thing.

Bill S.978 is the end of the internet if this pill is passed Crunchyroll will no longer be here youtube will mostlikly be very dead and the internet will suck read more about it on

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s112-978

Spoiler Alert! Click to show or hide

S 978 RS
Calendar No. 77
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 978
To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
May 12, 2011
Ms. KLOBUCHAR (for herself, Mr. CORNYN, and Mr. COONS) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
June 20 (legislative day, June 16), 2011
Reported by Mr. LEAHY, without amendment
A BILL
To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CRIMINAL INFRINGEMENT OF A COPYRIGHT.
(a) Amendments to Section 2319 of Title 18- Section 2319 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) by redesignating paragraphs (2) and (3) as paragraphs (3) and (4), respectively; and
(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the following:
‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years, fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both, if--
‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more public performances by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works; and
‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the performances, or the total economic value of such public performances to the infringer or to the copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances of those works would exceed $5,000;’; and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the following:
‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’, and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and (6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections 107 through 122, of title 17;’.
(b) Amendment to Section 506 of Title 17- Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’ the first place it appears; and
(2) in paragraph (3)--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘unauthorized distribution’; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘or public performance’ after ‘distribution’.
Calendar No. 77
112th CONGRESS
1st Session
S. 978
A BILL
To amend the criminal penalty provision for criminal infringement of a copyright, and for other purposes.

HEADS UP, EVERYONE!

If any of you have a question to ask President Obama regarding this issue or any other concerns, tweet to #askobama today! There will be an online town meeting tomorrow! You can find out more about it here: http://askobama.twitter.com/